Take-the-Cake Tuesday: Hubby Nails the Art of Faux Stained Glass

There are many things about my husband the average person doesn't know. Like how he makes the best grilled cheese sandwiches. Or how he converses with the cat when he doesn't think I'm listening. Or that he could totally win Craft Wars.

Why do I think he could win Craft Wars? Not because he's the best crafter out there (sorry, babe) but because he is the most determined. A few years ago, Allan really wanted a Dr. Who scarf, circa Tom Baker. (Did I get that right? If so, I should get wife brownie points.) Those scarves, though? Ridiculously expensive. So Allan decided he would make one. Come again? I asked. But he had it all planned out - YouTube knitting tutorials, patterns, color swatches - he was determined. And you know what? He did it.

Sniff, I miss my old home office.

As if that's not impressive enough, Allan's most recent crafty endeavor was so good that I actually asked him to hijack my blog for the day. So without further ado, I introduce Allan (aka Hubby):
***

So, today is my chance to do a little guest-blogging.  It’s not often that I get crafty, or at least blog-worthy in my craftiness, but Cher liked this project, and it came out OK.  First, a little background.

This project was borne of a couple of facts that are pretty fundamental to me.  One, I get bored during the summers.  Two, I get distracted by passersby.  I teach at a small women’s college here in Columbia, SC, and at the early part of the summer, right before I finished my summer teaching and before I was faced with nearly three months down-time, I changed offices.  My new office is attached to a resource center (I’m the new director, thus the new digs), and as such it has two doors:  one leading into the center, which is usually open when I’m there, and one facing the walkway/lobby of the library basement where the English department (my department) is located.  No, I don’t train slayers, as Julie Kagawa once suggested to me.  But I do prepare young women for equally frightening thinks:  teaching English.

Anyway, the door facing the basement lobby (and the stairs leading down to it— a really busy area) has one of those windows that is large enough to see into but small enough that, if you really want to check out what’s going on inside, you have to leer into.  This freaks me out to no end, so I thought I would kill two birds, as it goes, by making a little project for myself to stave off the summer blahs and also obscure myself from lookie-loos and vice versa.  Obviously, faux stained glass was the first thing to come to mind.

I’ve actually wanted to do this for a while, but never really had a window to do it on.  The supplies were pretty reasonably priced and the work not that difficult (even I could do it!), and it was a lot of fun.  Here’s how it went down:

I started off by making a template in the shape of the window I was covering.  I stole found images from online and grafted them together on the computer until I was happy with the design.  You can see the template, taped behind the work surface, below:

The next step really appealed to my OCD, as it allowed me to be meticulous without really having to be exact.  Using the black lines on the template as rough guides, I used Plaid’s Gallery Glass® Redi-Lead™ lines, thick for the nail and outlines, and thin for the random shapes in the fill areas.  I trimmed as I went with a craft knife, and by the time I was done I felt like a pro.  Definitely something you get better at.  In the first image below, you can see how I used the thick led lines to shape and, in some areas, shade the central images:

Here is the completed window, with the template still in place.  You can tell, especially at the bottom, how the template was really more like a “suggestion” for where to place lines:

Here’s the finished lead lines sans template, but before touch-ups:

Gallery Glass ® also makes something called Liquid Leading™, ostensibly for doing free-form lines, but I used it to connect my less-than-perfect sections:

Again, I like the detail work of using a craft knife, though I’m hardly good at it.  In the picture above you can see the excess fills on the glass, and me trimming below.  Also below, I did a test run of the first color of stained glass.

After all the leading was done and I was satisfied, I started to fill in with color.  Choosing the colors was pretty easy.  Thinking of this as a crest-like window, I surrounded the grey nail with orange (actually, amber) and two shades of blue (sapphire and blue diamond) to represent my Gator bona fides.  All using Gallery Glass ® Window Color™, though only because that’s what Michaels has.  I’m no brand whore.

Here’s the start of the orange.  I wanted this as more of a contrast color, so I kept it minimal:

Surprisingly, the filling in was one of the hardest parts, if only because I kinda had to guess at which colors to use where.  As you can tell in the pic below, the colors are a lot more opaque when wet than dry.  I would end up having to put at least two coats on, and I ended up doing only a few shapes at a time, so I could see how they looked dry and decide what color needed more, and where.

I actually have some experiences with real stained glass, though I can’t say it helped me with this.  My father is a Presbyterian minister, and at the church I grew up in, there were these hundred-year-old stained glass windows.  This is how I decided to mix the blues— I remembered as a kid noticing that solid colors were never really solid, but rather a mix of similar shades, even within the people depicted.  Slowly, my fake window took shape:

Another thing I remembered vividly from the windows in my dad’s church, was that because of their age, dad oversaw a restoration.  Glass, since it’s technically a liquid, moves down.  We can’t see it, but after a good many years, stained glass has to be, well, adjusted.  I had a similar problem that you can see in the picture below.  I picked Columbia College’s colors as the trim, and the purple rectangle at the top right has dried— but not before most of the paint collected at the bottom of the section.  Not a problem, in that nothing ran outside of the led lines, but it did necessitate another coat, and after awhile I became somewhat expert in putting the paint thickly at the top and letting it run down to fill.  This is the finished product from the inside of the door (minus touchups):

And here’s what most people see when they walk by my outer door:

Not bad, and the comments people have had (and shared to my face) have been positive.

This has been a long post, so thanks for sticking with it if you did. Usually it takes people a while to realize that they’re looking at a nail in the window, then a few more moments (sometimes not at all) to realize why.  I’d originally wanted to do a version of the 70s era Doctor Who logo, only with my last name instead of “Who,” but the image was too complicated to be done on such a small window.  Oh well, maybe next time.

Cheers!  

***
Today, Allan, I raise my fork to you. You take the cake.

My Twilight Zone

Hubby and I braved the cold and all the Johnstown teens and tweens to see Twilight today. I know that you're now expecting to read the words, "I *loved* it!" But I didn't. Don't get me wrong; it was good, and I really *liked* it, but it was missing that "spark" with which the books completely enthralled me. Maybe just as surprising to you is the fact that my hubby liked it (or at least claimed to; you can see his review after my cheers and jeers). In fact, he even indicated that he wants to read the books now. If only he can pry them from my hands. :)

So here are some of my thoughts (I will try to keep them spoiler-free for those of you who haven't yet finished the book...cough, cough, Mom...or seen the movie).

Cheers:

1. Robert Pattinson as Edward Cullen. While I admittedly wasn't sure about him at first (did anyone really picture Cedric Diggory as their vampire boyfriend?), he played the part perfectly. If you haven't read what Stephenie Meyer has posted of Midnight Sun, you should. Reading these first 12 chapters of Twilight from Edward's point-of-view, you can clearly see from where Pattinson drew his character motivation.
2. Bella and Chief Swan's father-daughter relationship. Having once been the moody, teenage daughter of my father, I found this portrayal to be among the most realistic in the movie. Plus, it added comic relief.
3. The Cullen Clan. I couldn't get enough of them (and didn't - see my jeers). What great casting! I even liked Rosalie, who I really didn't care for in the book. No matter what they were doing - from them simply sitting in the cafeteria to their fun-to-watch game of baseball - they contributed to some of the best scenes in the movie.
4. The ballet studio scene. Without giving anything away, suffice it to say that even though I knew how it would end, I found myself on the edge of my seat.
5. The ending. Again, I don't want to give anything away, so I'll just say that it did a great job of whetting our appetite for the sequel.

Jeers:

1. Where was my Cullen clan? I get that the focus of the story is the relationship between Edward and Bella. And I get that they can't possibly include everything from the book in the movie. BUT. The Cullens are a part of Edward and Bella's story. Where was Bella's friendship with Alice? Allusions were made to it, but it would have been nice to see more of the interaction between them and Jasper in the hotel, especially since we never really learn of Jasper's gift the way the movie was told. The Cullens were perfectly cast, and their scenes were among my favorites, so I wish we could have seen more of them.
2. Who pressed the fast-forward button? Again, I get that the movie is only two hours. And I know that to be a blockbuster, the movie has to sacrifice dialogue for action. BUT. The movie made quite a leap from Edward and Bella's tortured non-relationship to their eternal love. Not to mention, we lost a bit of the humor between Edward and Bella when we lost some of their pivotal conversations.
3. If you didn't read the book, would you have fully gotten it? There were several allusions to things revealed in the book that were not really explained in the movie. My hubby didn't read the book, and while he obviously got the overall story, I think there were a lot of intricacies to which he couldn't be privy.
4. Is there any way to make vampire movements less cheesy? This is the same complaint I have with True Blood. Showing vampires move at vampire speed, crouch in a protective stance, etc. is always difficult to take seriously, no matter how great your suspension of disbelief is (and mine is high given my love for musical theatre).

The jury is still out:

Kristen Stewart as Bella Swan. If I'm being objective, I would have to say that Stewart's portrayal of Bella was pretty dead-on. In fact, in some ways it might have been slightly better than how she is portrayed in the book because, aside from her "you can't say those things to me" meltdown toward the end of the movie, she wasn't overly symptomatic of a damsel in distress. The problem is that Stewart's interviews make it a little harder for me to be completely objective. Did you see The Today Show? She seemed truly annoyed by the fans, who are - HELLO - the whole reason there was a movie for you to make (not to mention the ones ultimately putting the hundreds of thousands in your bank account). I also got the feeling that she didn't really like the books. And she was kind of rude to Pattinson. Okay, you get the picture. I'm not her biggest fan. Or maybe I'm just secretly jealous of her.

The verdict:

I liked it. I'll see it again and probably like it more. I'll buy the DVD, and it will no doubt be one I watch over and over. And I will run to see New Moon when it's released. But I have a feeling that every time I see the movie, I will get the sudden urge to reread the book, which has taken up residence on my nightstand once again.

And now...a word from my dear hubby...

DH here. Full disclosure: I haven't read the book, yet. I should also say that I'm not one to immediately pooh-pooh a film based on a book, so I suppose the disclosure is beside the point.

I didn't get any sparkles down my leg this afternoon, either, but that's not usually how I enjoy my trips to the cinema. I was simply happy to be out seeing a movie at all after the colossal bait and switch Cher pulled on me years back. Here's my verdict: Twilight was surprisingly watchable.

It wasn't nearly as cheesy as I thought it would be, and it certainly had the potential to be so. Yes, the tweens swooned when the Brit with the gi-normous head came on for the first time, but he was dreamy. I thought the love story was believable, however, especially having taught girls and boys of that age. This is a tricky thing to pull off when you have adults writing dialog for child actors, no matter the actors' skills. It was an interesting take on teen relationships, and a believable one for the most part.

I also liked the origin aspects of the story, which is always a draw for me. I like to hear how others attempt to tweak the vampire story. Richard Matheson got this ball rolling back in the fifties, and after a dozen or more retellings, I find it interesting to see still more wrinkles added to the legend. The compassion element was a particular favorite of mine, with Carlisle only "turning" those he couldn't save otherwise--I was at first struck by his interpretation of "first do no harm," and the irony of having the daddy vampire be a doctor in the first place. The characterization of the Cullens as the vegetarians of the vampires was a clever way of making an old idea new(ish).

As a movie, this one was what it was. It was essentially eye candy for the pubescent and fantasy for the lonely and outcast. The plot was minimal and predictable. It did seem to jump from initial conflict with James to the confrontation with Edward in the ... ballet studio? And this was the biggest problem I had with the movie, as far as an adaptation goes. Of course, you can't expect a two hour movie to cover everything in a 500 page novel. I have to chuckle when I hear the fan-girls complain about this. Movies and books are not the same thing, yet so many invested fans get tied in knots when their favorite nuance isn't the center of things.

I have a point, related to the ballet studio, and here it is: I'm sure the ballet studio was chosen for some significant reason. I'm sure there were plenty of things in this movie that were specifically chosen because they were important. Cher told me that Meyer insisted on the filmmakers keeping the line "the lion fell in love with the lamb" for just this reason. That's fine. I threw up a little when I heard it said out-loud, but whatever. But there seemed to be just as many choices made with no particular care to how they would translate to the screen. Perhaps this is a fault of the book as well. Just now, Cher insists there is nothing especially significant about the ballet studio, so maybe that choice by James is just as random as it appeared to me. Again, whatever. I didn't expect high art. I just think that if you're going to wink at the insiders during a movie, you shouldn't make it so obvious to those of us who didn't wear "Team Cullen" jerseys to the Richland Cinema.

Ok, this is more than I wanted to say, but I have one other beef. A friend mentioned his concern about Twilight emasculating vampires for the future, and while I thought that was pretty funny (Edward literally sparkles in the sunlight. How very Broadway musical.), I thought later that this new vampire tale certainly does reinforce the "girls love bad-boys" meme that kept me dateless in high school for so long. And Bella takes it one step beyond; it's no longer enough to be attracted to the dangerous boy, she wants to be a vampire too? Ugh. What a drag.

In all, I thought it was fine. Enjoyed it, will likely never watch it again, but was interested enough that I'll likely read the books over the coming holiday season. The scenery alone is enough to make me want to move to Washington state (not really).

Thanks for the space, hon.